If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Even dog breeders know it's a bad idea. Rationalize it all you want...consensual, no kids, contraception, fucking whatever dumb little thought crawls into your idiot brain box. At the end of the day it's still sick and wrong. If you see it any other way, you are one seriously fucked up individual. I suggest you strap on your helmet, get to the back of the bus and stick your head out the window like a good little idiot.

Ok...i'll try to dumb it down as best I can for you. How do you rationalize or explain stupidity...wait I'll get into full-on retard mode...k? Ummmmmmmm...duhhh, I'm there and here we go...

You have a brother? Go fuck him and then walk up to mommy and daddy and tell them you found your true love. Introduce your brother and watch them shit. Then just tell them you were joking and it's not really love, just fuck practice. Go break your parents hearts.

Secondly, if you can't find anyone to have sex with more than 20 times removed from your own family tree, move. There's a reason why the English look the way they do.

Disease or physical abnormalities have no way of being bred out if you fuck the same people in a 5 square mile colony for 200 years. Count your fingers, toes, arms, legs and head. You tired of the whole 10-10-2-2-1 look? Incest is for you.

Honestly, this argument sounds a lot like the argument that most pedophiles are men who go after boys. Legalizing adult consensual relationships between people of the same sex does not make this more common or more accepted; legalizing adult consensual relationships between relatives would not cause what you described to be any more common or accepted, either.

It'd make legal gray areas that would make situations like the ones I described almost impossible to prosecute or even detect at all. If Johnny and Sally come out and say "hey mom and dad, we're 23 and 20 years old and we're in love" there's no way of knowing how long that relationship has existed or how it started and could have easily started yesterday or started because Johnny made Sally blow him when she was 12 and it fucked up her entire notions of adult sexuality and now this is all she knows. If incest is made legal, that might just look to people the same way teens fucking in high school already does and we can't and don't prosecute high schoolers for having sex underage after the fact.

If a teacher has sex with an underage student, the teacher is always at fault, even though I know there were teachers I would have willingly had sex with happily. But my not being able to do so largely stems from a ton of situations where that wasn't the case. Incest works in the same way because it's impossible to tell if the consent is genuine or the result of some kind of manipulation that even the person "consenting" doesn't entirely understand. This is why there's a legal black and white despite the fact that there's obvious gray areas, because enough people are hurt that it's worth sacrificing those who enter these relationships responsibly.

This isn't an issue of commonplace or acceptance because molestation will never become acceptable and never did
I argue that making incest legal will make it so. But it would create tons of weird legal loopholes and situations where burying legitimate claims of molestation and rape is easier than it already is.

So the argument shouldn't be "incest should be legal because having children at old age or stuffing yourself with unhealthy foods is legal, too", but "causing birth defects because of having children at too old age or stuffing yourself with unhealthy foods until you get cancer should be just as illegal as incest" (even if this particular example may sound a little ridiculous to some).

This is nonsense. What you're saying is, if you had it your way, those things would be illegal? Okay, what's the cutoff point for pregnancies? Do you start forcing sterilization on 38 year olds, or mandatory abortions after 42? How do you decide who is allowed to get a Big Mac and who isn't? Overall weight, BMI, general fitness? Who decides wether they are fit to consume fast food, and who pays for all these procedures and checkups?

What about smokers and drinkers? Surely, the inherit danger in these acts is comparable to overeating junk food. I could be wrong, but I'm not certain smoking and/or drinking while pregnant is actually illegal. Does anyone know the risks of that compared to the risk of inbreeding?

Really though, the fast food thing is ridiculous. I'd wager that stress is a pretty serious cause of death or serious illness. People work themselves to death all the time, what would you do about that?

Of course there are some exceptions, but I am generally in favor of letting people live the way they choose. I think others have the right to discourage and even shame others (not that I agree) for their choices and habits, I'm even down for government or private policies that punish or reward certain behaviors, but at some point, you just have to live and let live, within reason. For example, I think suicide should be prevented and discouraged, but I don't think it should be illegal. It's especially silly that assisted suicide is illegal.

There's a reason this is a universal taboo. That means it's been taboo, and will conceivably be taboo in every human society, regardless of size or organization or ideology or religion. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it just means it's strongly frowned upon and sanctioned. I mean, let's face it, even if you put aside biology, it's weird. Most of us have that gut instinct, which comes out of psychological and developmental reasons I read an article about once but don't have detailed knowledge of to quote right now, so I'll just say - there are good reasons why most of us wouldn't bang a family member. And why most consensual incest happens in cases where the family members did not grow up together at all. Something happens when you live in a family, where you're just put off by the thought of thinking about these people sexually. And that's a fucking good thing.

To all those defending incest from a purely intellectual or logical standpoint, rather than because of a personal experience and conviction - why? What's your investment in all this? This isn't the civil rights movement. This isn't about discriminating against a large section of the populus for racist or homophobic or other -ist reasons.

I have sympathy for the miniscule minority of people who've inadvertently ended up in incestual relationships ("we didn't know we shared a father before we boned, whoops!") or strongly believe theirs is an entirely consensual relationship between adults. But if they've got good heads on their shoulders, they probably understand that the law isn't there just for their circumstances - it's there for the underage, often child, sexual abuse victim whose abuser is a family member.

Power differences exist in all kinds of relationships, some of them we legislate against, some of them we don't. (We don't ban inter-office relationships in the law, for example, though it's often acknowledged that they can be a bad idea because of power relations/potential sexual harassment.) You know what that's a good argument for, though? Better protection for sexual abuse, sexual harassment and rape victims- who are constantly undermined, blamed and questioned, even within the justice system that is supposed to guarantee them safety and rights. It's not an argument for opening the doors to all possible relationships where skewed power dynamics are involved, and therefore it is not an argument for legalizing incest.

There's a reason this is a universal taboo. That means it's been taboo, and will conceivably be taboo in every human society, regardless of size or organization or ideology or religion. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it just means it's strongly frowned upon and sanctioned. I mean, let's face it, even if you put aside biology, it's weird. Most of us have that gut instinct, which comes out of psychological and developmental reasons I read an article about once but don't have detailed knowledge of to quote right now, so I'll just say - there are good reasons why most of us wouldn't bang a family member. And why most consensual incest happens in cases where the family members did not grow up together at all. Something happens when you live in a family, where you're just put off by the thought of thinking about these people sexually. And that's a fucking good thing.

To all those defending incest from a purely intellectual or logical standpoint, rather than because of a personal experience and conviction - why? What's your investment in all this? This isn't the civil rights movement. This isn't about discriminating against a large section of the populus for racist or homophobic or other -ist reasons.

I have sympathy for the miniscule minority of people who've inadvertently ended up in incestual relationships ("we didn't know we shared a father before we boned, whoops!") or strongly believe theirs is an entirely consensual relationship between adults. But if they've got good heads on their shoulders, they probably understand that the law isn't there just for their circumstances - it's there for the underage, often child, sexual abuse victim whose abuser is a family member.

Power differences exist in all kinds of relationships, some of them we legislate against, some of them we don't. (We don't ban inter-office relationships in the law, for example, though it's often acknowledged that they can be a bad idea because of power relations/potential sexual harassment.) You know what that's a good argument for, though? Better protection for sexual abuse, sexual harassment and rape victims- who are constantly undermined, blamed and questioned, even within the justice system that is supposed to guarantee them safety and rights. It's not an argument for opening the doors to all possible relationships where skewed power dynamics are involved, and therefore it is not an argument for legalizing incest.

I love this so much: just perfect.

Originally Posted by Tom Gabel

Adrenaline carried one last thought to fruition.
Let this be the end.
Let this be the last song.
Let this be the end.
Let all be forgiven.

I know this a spam account, but whatever. I'd actually support it *not* being a "right" for anyone to have as many children as they want. I think it'd be great if abortion was taken more seriously and people like drug addicts, those who are likely to pass on horrible diseases, those who already have like 5 kids, etc, etc were limited.

I'm just a little curious. Why do you want to limit people to five kids? Overpopulation?

Originally Posted by Jojan

So really, The Offspring is only Ron. The rest of the band left. O_o

Originally Posted by XYlophonetreeZ

For selfish reasons, I hope he's really dead. I really don't want to become known as "That guy who keeps making premature death threads for ethnic-looking dudes."

Ok...i'll try to dumb it down as best I can for you. How do you rationalize or explain stupidity...wait I'll get into full-on retard mode...k? Ummmmmmmm...duhhh, I'm there and here we go...

You have a brother? Go fuck him and then walk up to mommy and daddy and tell them you found your true love. Introduce your brother and watch them shit. Then just tell them you were joking and it's not really love, just fuck practice. Go break your parents hearts.

Secondly, if you can't find anyone to have sex with more than 20 times removed from your own family tree, move. There's a reason why the English look the way they do.

Disease or physical abnormalities have no way of being bred out if you fuck the same people in a 5 square mile colony for 200 years. Count your fingers, toes, arms, legs and head. You tired of the whole 10-10-2-2-1 look? Incest is for you.

Plus, it's icky.

Do you think patronising will help convincing me? You are obviously not capable of presenting an argument based on reason.

Only said what I did because Jakebert's argument sounded a lot to me like many arguments I hear against homosexuality. Obviously I don't equate them or think they're the same.

There's a reason this is a universal taboo. That means it's been taboo, and will conceivably be taboo in every human society, regardless of size or organization or ideology or religion. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it just means it's strongly frowned upon and sanctioned. I mean, let's face it, even if you put aside biology, it's weird. Most of us have that gut instinct, which comes out of psychological and developmental reasons I read an article about once but don't have detailed knowledge of to quote right now, so I'll just say - there are good reasons why most of us wouldn't bang a family member. And why most consensual incest happens in cases where the family members did not grow up together at all. Something happens when you live in a family, where you're just put off by the thought of thinking about these people sexually. And that's a fucking good thing.

Yes, I agree that it's super weird and it's good that most people don't go that way. But as has been said earlier in this thread, "it's weird" isn't a very good argument for why it should be illegal. "And why most consensual incest happens in cases where the family members did not grow up together at all." - Right, that's exactly the kind of incest I can't see as being a big deal. It'd be great if there was a way to allow certain types and not other types, but since there's not a way to do that, again, I support it being illegal.

To all those defending incest from a purely intellectual or logical standpoint, rather than because of a personal experience and conviction - why? What's your investment in all this? This isn't the civil rights movement. This isn't about discriminating against a large section of the populus for racist or homophobic or other -ist reasons.

Huh? It's a thread on the BBS. I don't really care all that much, but it was asked here, so I gave my thoughts. Though I'm not one of the people defending incest, so I guess this isn't really directed at me...

Power differences exist in all kinds of relationships, some of them we legislate against, some of them we don't. (We don't ban inter-office relationships in the law, for example, though it's often acknowledged that they can be a bad idea because of power relations/potential sexual harassment.) You know what that's a good argument for, though? Better protection for sexual abuse, sexual harassment and rape victims- who are constantly undermined, blamed and questioned, even within the justice system that is supposed to guarantee them safety and rights. It's not an argument for opening the doors to all possible relationships where skewed power dynamics are involved, and therefore it is not an argument for legalizing incest.

And again, I'm not for legalizing incest.

Originally Posted by Jakebert

It'd make legal gray areas that would make situations like the ones I described almost impossible to prosecute or even detect at all. If Johnny and Sally come out and say "hey mom and dad, we're 23 and 20 years old and we're in love" there's no way of knowing how long that relationship has existed or how it started and could have easily started yesterday or started because Johnny made Sally blow him when she was 12 and it fucked up her entire notions of adult sexuality and now this is all she knows. If incest is made legal, that might just look to people the same way teens fucking in high school already does and we can't and don't prosecute high schoolers for having sex underage after the fact.

If a teacher has sex with an underage student, the teacher is always at fault, even though I know there were teachers I would have willingly had sex with happily. But my not being able to do so largely stems from a ton of situations where that wasn't the case. Incest works in the same way because it's impossible to tell if the consent is genuine or the result of some kind of manipulation that even the person "consenting" doesn't entirely understand. This is why there's a legal black and white despite the fact that there's obvious gray areas, because enough people are hurt that it's worth sacrificing those who enter these relationships responsibly.

This isn't an issue of commonplace or acceptance because molestation will never become acceptable and never did
I argue that making incest legal will make it so. But it would create tons of weird legal loopholes and situations where burying legitimate claims of molestation and rape is easier than it already is.

Yes, you've addressed my point here. I see now what you were saying and I understand your thoughts. It was just initially worded in a way that sounded all too familiar. I do agree, and that adds to my anti-legalization stance. Once again, if there were a way to legalize it only for sterilized people who'd never lived together and could prove it was a healthy relationship, I'd support it. Unfortunately, it is too complicated in this case.

However, I'm not sure I agree that it'd make molestation acceptable... how would it do that? Unless there was a blanket "all incest is fine", which I most certainly do not even remotely advocate.

Originally Posted by KickHimWhenHe'sDown

I'm just a little curious. Why do you want to limit people to five kids? Overpopulation?

It's off topic... but basically because I think people are adding to our over-population problems for completely selfish reasons. It's totally uneconomical, and there's simply zero reason for it. Hell, I'd be cool with capping a person's biological reproduction at two children. I understand wanting a child (even though I see no reason to have a baby when there are plenty who are up for adoption and need a home). I understand wanting that child to have a sibling. Beyond that, there is just no good reason for having more kids. And I say this as someone whose mother had 4 children, and whose brother had 5... :-/